USPTO Patents Application 09909072

REMARKS

Claims 24 and 25 are amended and claims 24-30 remain in the application for
consideration. In view of the following remarks and the foregoing amendments,
Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of the subject
application.

S 103 Rejections

Claims 24-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for allegedly being
obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,742,772 to Sreenan in view of U.S. Patent No.
5,442,791 to Wrabetz, et al. (hereinafter "Wrabetz"). These rejections are
respectfully traversed.

The Claims

Independent claim 24 is amended, and as amended recites in a computer
system having resources and a resource planner for granting reservations of
amounts of resources to activities, a computer-implemented method comprising
[added language is indicated in underline]:

• submitting a request for a reservation of a set of resources in
specified amounts from an activity to the resource planner;

• determining at the resource planner that the request may not be
granted;

• returning from the resource planner to the activity a list , the list
including an amount of each resource in a set of resources that js
currently available to the activity , the amount being specified in
terms of units specific to each resource in the set of resources ;

6

O:\DOCS\MS1\0204USC1\CD1510.DOC

• using the returned list at the activity to reformulate the request
for a reservation of the set of resources to specify new requested
amounts;

• resubmitting the reformulated request to the resource planner;
and

• executing the activity.

The Office argues that the subject matter of claim 24 is obvious over
Sreenan in view of Wrabetz. While Applicant respectfully disagrees with this
rejection, Applicant has nonetheless amended the claim to further clarify its
subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 24 for
allegedly being obvious over Sreenan in view of Wrabetz fails for at least the
reason that the cited combination of references fails to disclose or suggest all of
the features recited in claim 24.

Specifically, Applicant submits that Wrabetz fails to disclose or suggest the
feature of:

• returning from the resource planner to the activity a lis t, the list
including an amount of each resource in a set of resources that is
currently available to the activit y, the amounts being specified in
terms of units specific to each resource in the set of resources .

During the Examiner Interview, the Examiner cited to Wrabetz at column
16, lines 25-50 (approximately) as allegedly discussing a "list of amounts of
resources." However, Wrabetz simply discusses "creat[ing] a list of all of the
resources that match the requested resource type " (column 16, lines 37-38,
emphasis added). Nowhere does Wrabetz disclose or suggest the above-
mentioned feature, particularly with respect to the amounts [of resources] being
7

O:\DOCS\MS1\0204USC1\CD15IO.DOC

specified in terms of units specific to each resource in the set of resources. This
feature is not found in either Wrabetz or Sreenan. For further discussion of this
feature, the Office is directed to Applicant's specification at, among other places,
page 9, line 26, through page 10, line 4, and page 12, line 43, through page 13, line

Accordingly, and at least for this reason, Applicant submits that a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 24 cannot be established based on
this combination of references and this claim is allowable.

Independent claim 25 is amended, and as amended recites in a computer
system having resources and a resource planner for granting reservations of
amounts of resources to activities performed on the computer system, a computer-
implemented method comprising [added language is indicated in underline]:

• negotiating between the resource planner and activities to reserve
shares of the resources with the resource planner on behalf of the
activities;

• in view of changing resource usage or requirements,
renegotiating between the resource planner and the activities to
change reservations of resources on behalf of the activities to
reflect the changing resource usage or requirements, wherein
renegotiating includes returning from the resource planner to the
activity a list , the list including an amount of each resource in a
set of resources that is currently available to the activity , the
amount being specified in terms of units specific to each resource
in the set of resources ; and

• executing at least one of the activities.

The Office argues that the subject matter of claim 25 is obvious over
Sreenan in view of Wrabetz. While Applicant respectfully disagrees with this

8

O:\DOCS\MS 1 \0204USC 1 \CD 1 5 1 0. DOC

rejection, Applicant has nonetheless amended the claim to further clarify its
subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 25 for
allegedly being obvious over Sreenan in view of Wrabetz fails for at least the
reason that the cited combination of references fails to disclose or suggest all of
the features recited in claim 25.

Specifically, neither reference discloses or suggests the feature of a list
including an amount of each resource in a set of resources that is currently
available to the activit y, the amount being specified in terms of units specific to
each resource in the set of resources. As discussed above, Wrabetz simply
discusses a list of resources that match a requested resource type .

Accordingly, and at least for this reason, Applicant submits that a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 25 cannot be established based on
this combination of references and this claim is allowable.

Claims 26-30 depend from claim 25 and thus are allowable as depending
from an allowable base claim. These claims are also allowable for their own
recited features which, in combination with those recited in claim 25, are neither
disclosed nor suggested by the references of record.

Conclusion

All of the claims are in condition for allowance. Accordingly, Applicant
requests a Notice of Allowability be issued forthwith. If the Office's next
anticipated action is to be anything other than issuance of a Notice of Allowability,
Applicant respectfully requests a telephone call for the purpose of scheduling an
interview.

9

O:\DOCS\MSl \0204USC 1 \CD 1 5 1 0 DOC

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: September 13,2007

David W. Foster
Reg. No. 60,902
(509) 324-9256 ex. 219

10

O:\DOCS\MS1\0204USC1\CD1510.DOC